Chennai Court January 1909 Judgments
In Re: Arumugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1134a
ORDER1. The act of the accused in stabbing prosecution witness No. 1 amounts prima facie, on the evidence to an attempt to commit murder, and the Depute Magistrate Should have committed the case to the Sessions and not tried it himself. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and direct that the accused be committed to the Sessions on changes of attempt to murder Arumugam under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, and of voluntarily causing hurt to Sittan and Jambulingam by means of an instrument for stabbing under Section 324, Indian Penal Code....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Vemi Reddi Lacha Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.245
ORDER1. It is clear from the evidence of Prosecution Witness No. 2 that the only information, that the Village Magistrate--accused--had, was that a jewel, belonging to P.W. No. 2, was missing, whether because it had been stolen or because the daughter of P.W. No. 2 had lost it. This being so, it cannot be said that the Village Magistrate had any information of the commission of that offence of theft, which, under Section 45(c), Criminal Procedure Code, he was bound to communicate to the Magistrate or Police. We set aside the conviction against the accused and direct that the fine, if paid, be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Appavu Manigaran Vs. Muthusawmi Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1167a
1. The points pressed are that the suit is barred under Articles 119, 127 and 144 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act, and that the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit without first setting aside Ex. IV. It is not shown that the defendant-appellant contended in his written statement that the suit was barred under Articles 127 and 144. His only contention as to limitation appears to have been that the suit was barred under Article 119, as the plaintiff has not sued in time to obtain a declaration as to the validity of his adoption. The new pleas of limitation under Articles 127 and 144 involve the decisions of new questions of fact and the appellant cannot be allowed to raise them in second appeal. As to Article 119, that article has no application to a suit for possession. Jagannath Prasad Gupta v. Runjit Singh 25 C.k 354 and Velaga Mangamma v. Bandiamudi Veerayya 2 M.L.T. 178.2. As to Ex. IV, it is not a deed of sale and Article 144 of Schedule II, of the Limitation Act, does not appl...
Tag this Judgment!Appandai Vathiyar and ors. Vs. Ragubali Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.280
1. The only question for consideration in this case is whether the mother's sister's son or the maternal uncle's son is the preferential heir to the estate of a deceased Hindu. The matter is involved in considerable obscurity and no clear pronouncement can be gathered from the texts of the Hindu Law. The commentators are also mostly silent upon the subject. The well-known text cited, as that of Vridha Satatapa or sometimes as that of Baudhayana, divides bhandhus into three classes, namely Atma bandhus, Pitri bandhus and Matri bandhus. The Mitakshara is explicit that these three classes succeed in the order in which they are named; see Mitakshara, Chapter II, Section 6, Pl. 2. And the Privy Council, accepting the decision of this Court in Muthusami v. Muthukumarasami 16 M.k 23 has approved of this order in Muthusami Mudalyiar v. Simambedu Muthukumaraswami Mudaiyar 19 M.k 405. The question of the older of succession of the three classes of bandhus being thus settled, the farther question...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatakrishnama Charlu Vs. Krishna Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.723
1. This suit is brought to declare the plaintiff's right to attach certain property in execution of the decree in Original Suit No. 479 of 1899 which he obtained against one Gopalacharlu. The defendant also was a party to that suit. The Judge has, therefore, held that the question is one that should have been determined in execution and not by separate suit. But as the Court which tried this original suit is also the Court for executing the decree, he held that the Court has not acted without jurisdiction and disallowed the contention of the appellant that the suit must be dismissed on the ground that it is barred by Section 244 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882.2. The same contention is raised before us. In the earliest reported case, brought to our notice which has been subsequently followed in delivering the judgment of the Court Couch, C.J. said: 'With regard to the objection that this ought not to be by a separate suit, but by a proceeding in execution of the decree, the answer ...
Tag this Judgment!Ambalavana Pandara Sannadhi Vs. Singaravelu Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1118a
1. The first question is whether the plaintiff can sue on the instrument. This question has been decided in Ramanuja Aiyenger v. Sadagopa Aiyengar 15 M.L.J. 249 and Subramania Tevan v. Arunachala Tevan 18 M.L.J. 186 against the view contended by the appellant and we follow those cases.2. The other question raised is whether the plaintiff's suit can be dealt with as a suit for the recovery of the alleged loan apart from the instrument. There is no suggestion of this case even in the grounds of second appeal and we cannot allow the question to be argued now.3. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.4. The memorandum of objections is not moved and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Kari Chengamna and anr. Vs. Jatti Kristnamnah and ors. and Sannayala P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.219
1. We are not prepared to differ from the decision in Barber Maran v. Ramana Gounden 20 M.k 461 mainly based upon the proviso to Section 38 of the Indian Contract Act, which undoubtedly supports the conclusion arrived at in that judgment.2. We accordingly dismiss the second appeal and the revision petition with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Saminatha Pillay Alias Kandasawmy Pillay Vs. Dorasawmy Naick and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.212
1. The plaintiff is entitled to recover. He is the assignee of the bond and, therefore, entitled to sue. See Rama Iyen v. Venkatachellam Patter 30 M.k 75. This ruling was not reported at the time of the judgment now appealed against.2. We reverse the decree of the lower Courts, direct the District Munsif to restore the suit to his file and deal with it according to law. Costs hitherto incurred will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!Kumara thevan Vs. Karuthayee thevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1129a
1. The parties entered into a contract by which the defendants undertook to get the guardians of the two minors to execute a deed of sale to the plaintiff and to exchange certain lands belonging to another minor for some of the plaintiff's lands.2. If the sale and the exchange were not carried out, the defendants were to pay to the complainant Rs. 50 in all for damages.3. This agreement is not binding on the minors. But we do not see how that will render the provision as to payment of damages invalid.4. The Subordinate Judge holds that the composition of a crime committed by the so-called guardians--the defendants--confers no benefit on the minor. This may be so, but it does not appear how that affects the validity of the contract between the parties for the payment of the sum of money.5. We must, therefore, set aside the decrees and direct the Subordinate Judge to restore the suit to his file and decide it according to law. Costs will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!Kannappa Samiyar and ors. Vs. the Madura Hindu Permanent Fund
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.909
1. We are unable to agree with the Commissioner and the District Judge as to the principle on which the accounts in this case should be taken. We think the monthly payments which have been made under Rule 2 of the Articles of Association of the Fund should be credited towards the mortgage loan. The 1st defendant when he became a member of the Society was under a contractual liability to pay Rs. 20 a month as the subscription on his shares. If he had incurred no liability by taking an advance on mortgage, he would, if ho paid Rs. 20 a month for 7 years, have been entitled to receive from the Society Rs. 2,050, the amounts of his subscriptions plus interest. When he took an advance on mortgage he covenanted by the mortgage deed to pay interest on the mortgage and also pay Rs. 20 a month. No doubt this Rs. 20 a month is described in the mortgage deed as the money which ho had agreed to pay under Rule 3, but the fact that he covenanted to pay this amount in the mortgage deed seems to us to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »